Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rocksvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!rocksvax!dw
From: dw@rocksvax.UUCP (Don Wegeng)
Newsgroups: net.micro.pc
Subject: Re: Ramdisks in high memory
Message-ID: <27@rocksvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 15-May-86 12:30:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: rocksvax.27
Posted: Thu May 15 12:30:34 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 17-May-86 05:23:05 EDT
References: <1893@ihlpg.UUCP> <1897@ihlpg.UUCP> <2104@cbosgd.UUCP> <1063@well.UUCP>
Reply-To: dw@rocksvax.UUCP (Don Wegeng)
Organization: Xerox: Henrietta, NY
Lines: 33
Summary: 

In article <1063@well.UUCP> ljz@well.UUCP (Lloyd Zusman) writes:
>In article <2104@cbosgd.UUCP> mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) writes:
>>In article <1897@ihlpg.UUCP> nromy@ihlpg.UUCP (Romy) writes:
>>
>>I just looked in my DOS manual for the 6300 plus.  There is nothing
>>called VDISK.  There is something called RAMDISK, documented in
>>appendix H.  But no /E option or anything comparable.
>>
>>Perhaps VDISK comes from some other source?  If so, where can we get it?
>>It's silly to have a third of a MB sitting there wasted while I eat up
>>my precious 640K with a RAM DISK.
>>
>>	Mark
>
>
>... and furthermore, when I try to use IBM's VDISK on my 6300+ with the
>/E option, it doesn't work.

In the past I've heard that MS-DOS 3.1 and PC-DOS 3.1 are not the same.
My own efforts to get the cluster size on my 20 MByte dribve under
MS-DOS (on a Xerox 6064) to be 2K rather than 8K seem to confirm this.
It seems that MS-DOS 3.1 cannot handle a 16 bit FAT entry.

In general, be very cautious about assuming that *anything* under
PC-DOS is the same as under MS-DOS. It would also be nice if people
specified which DOS they were using, instead of just saying "DOS".

/Don 
-- 
Everybody wants a happy ending.

arpa:	Wegeng.Henr@Xerox.COM
uucp:	ihnp4!rocksvax!dw